Get full details for an endpoint you own, including credit balance, pricing config, and wallet address. PATs are preferred and require mcp:read or mcp:*.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The unique slug identifier for the endpoint | |
| apiKey | No | Legacy endpoint API key (x402_*) | |
| accessToken | No | Your dashboard MCP personal access token (sgl_pat_*) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the returned data categories (credit balance, pricing config, wallet address) and auth requirements, which is valuable. It does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or precedence when both apiKey and accessToken are supplied, but for a read operation this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and includes the most important details. It avoids fluff and redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes expected return fields and auth requirements. It lacks clarity on auth precedence between PAT and API key, and does not mention whether apiKey is deprecated or legacy. Still, for a read tool with simple parameters, it is mostly sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (slug, apiKey, accessToken) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds minimal additional parameter-level meaning, only implying which auth method is preferred. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves full details for a specific owned endpoint, listing the included fields (credit balance, pricing config, wallet address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_endpoint_stats or list_my_endpoints, which focus on statistics or listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It identifies that this is for endpoints you own, implying it should be used for owned resources rather than marketplace browsing. It also provides auth guidance (PATs preferred, requiring mcp:read or mcp:*), which helps the agent understand credential requirements. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools pair a clear verb with a distinct resource noun, so endpoints, agents, datasets, campaigns, products, and vault operations are generally easy to separate. The main risk is the repeated request_*_payment / *_with_payment pairs and the two create_*_with_payment tools, which are only distinguishable by reading descriptions carefully.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun snake_case, such as list_my_endpoints, update_campaign, and finalize_agent_registration, and the payment/request pairs are consistently named. The vault_* tools use a namespace prefix rather than verb-first names, and vault_how_to_backup breaks the action-oriented convention, so it is not perfectly uniform.
48 tools is a very large MCP surface, well beyond the 25-tool threshold where selection becomes a serious burden. Even though the server spans multiple domains, the count feels excessive for a single agent-facing tool set and should likely be split by domain.
The core endpoint, agent, marketplace, and payment flows are well covered, including creation, updates, stats, and two-phase x402 purchases. However, there is no create_product or delete_product, campaigns lack delete, and there is no way to list previously purchased datasets, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.